Sign up for Express
New from Palo Alto Online, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!

Login | Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Click for Palo Alto, California Forecast
Palo Alto Online Movies
Increase font Increase font
Decrease font Decrease font
Adjust text size

Review: 'J. Edgar'
(Two stars)

Photos

Bookmark and Share
It seems like a winning formula: Unite an accomplished director (Clint Eastwood) with a gifted actor (Leonardo DiCaprio) to tell the story of a notable historical figure (J. Edgar Hoover). The recipe has been tested a dozen times over, with triumphs ("Milk"), disappointments ("Public Enemies") and middle-grounders ("Ali").

Sadly, Eastwood's drab and awkward "J. Edgar" steers closer to the disappointments category. The tedious 137-minute film features a strong cast and admirable production values such as makeup, costuming and set design. But the narrative leaps back and forth in time, fragmenting the pace and confusing the viewers. And the picture's muted gray tones coupled with monotonous piano tunes make "J. Edgar" this year's best flick for insomniacs. They'll doze right off.

DiCaprio is slightly miscast as Hoover, the first and longest-tenured director of the FBI. Eastwood endeavors to cover a lot of territory in Hoover's lengthy career, which spanned the better part of four decades. The audience follows as Hoover dictates his memoirs to a revolving door of writers, flashing back to the dawn of the FBI and some of his more high-profile challenges and achievements, such as the kidnapping and subsequent death of Charles Lindbergh Jr.

Hoover interacts with a wealth of various personalities as the FBI expands and progresses, though relationships with his longtime secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) and colleague Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer of "The Social Network") are granted the most screen time. Inferences about Hoover's sexuality abound as he and Tolson develop a lifelong friendship that borders (or more?) on the romantic. In one scene, Tolson goes into hysterics when Hoover reveals that he has been dating Hollywood actress Dorothy Lamour.

Kudos to the makeup department for impressively "aging up" DiCaprio, Hammer and Watts for certain scenes. An excellent supporting cast that includes Judi Dench, Josh Lucas and Dermot Mulroney adds more thespian prowess to the proceedings. DiCaprio delivers another solid performance, though a focus on nailing Hoover's unique speech patterns keep DiCaprio from going all-out. Hammer fares well in his role and is perfectly cast, but his skills seem novice in comparison to DiCaprio's.

Watching "J. Edgar" reminded this critic of sitting in a dimly lit history class after tossing back a tablespoon of NyQuil. The film is interesting but not compelling, about a protagonist who is neither likable nor despicable. It's a solid character study, but one better suited for the History Channel or an HBO special. There is a drab undertone to the whole affair that is the cinematic equivalent of an overcast day.

American-history enthusiasts may appreciate the film's context and Eastwood's attention to detail. Here's a suggestion: Go in the morning after a cup of coffee instead of the evening after a glass of wine.

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.


Comments

Posted by William Hanley, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm

I enjoyed reading this. Having heard that it was not a great movie it was good to get the details. One would just assume DiCaprio and

Eastwood wouled make a great movie. I'll still be looking for another from the duo.


Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Just curious, did the movie report, accurately, that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, and that J. Edgar Hoover played a major role in smoking him out?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 3:59 pm

The movie was completely panned by the WSJ this weekend.

Wooden performances poor directing and acting- rambling script--they said.

A real missed opportunity and an unfortunate big fail for Clint Eastwood


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Breakback Mountain in D.C.

Hoover's alleged homosexuality perhaps deserved a mention. Instead it was made the centerpiece. Funny, I thought Hollywood approved of accepting homosexuals into the mainstream.


Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm

Maybe it's the self-loathing, closeted, double-standard bearing homosexuals they detest, if indeed Walter's premise is correct.


Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community, on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:25 pm

I think it's simpler than that. Homosexuals are only acceptable if they are liberals. Same thing is true of Blacks, Women, etc, etc.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:46 pm

The simple fact is that it is a lousy movie

Some one should make a good movie of the history of the FBI

Martin Scorsese can do a much better film

This one is a dud


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:38 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Overt homosexuality back then would have ended Hoover's career. His secret homosexuality, if indeed it was, harmed no one. Even his Pearl Harbor files, as a private reminder, were not illegal. With today's tolerance, this picture was unnecessary.


Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:59 am

"Homosexuals are only acceptable if they are liberals."

Wow, no filter there, eh? One wonders what Log Cabin Republicans think about such a crass, uniformed opinion.

Actually, Observer is probably correct in her little cloistered world. Have the Republicans let Fred Karger into any debates? Web Link Was it only liberals booing an American service member live at a GOP debate? Web Link

Nah, nice try, Observer. Take off your blinders and perhaps your powers of observation would improve significantly.

And for grins, go google "santorum".


Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2011 at 10:01 am

strike "uniformed " replace with "uniNformed"


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.
Add a Comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration! Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff
 
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *
Select your Neighborhood or School Community: * Not sure?
Comment: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box. *
Verification Code:   


Best Website
First Place
2009-2011

 

Palo Alto Online   © 2013 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.